President Radev exceeds the powers that the new constitutional procedure under Art. 99, para. 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria (CRB), provides him. The head of state has limited discretion in relation to the appointment of the caretaker government.
For this I recall on "Facebook" Prof. Dr. Borislav Tsekov.
First, he has the right to designate the acting Prime Minister from among those exhaustively and limitedly listed in the second sentence of Art. 99, para. 5 KRB officials.
Secondly, the determination of the structure and personnel of the caretaker government is at the discretion of the caretaker prime minister. The President has the right to express his opinion on this matter when appointing the acting Prime Minister or during the consultations with the parliamentary groups. But the judgment whether to comply with his position belongs entirely to the acting prime minister. His proposal for composition and structure is binding.
Third, the president is not "chief" of the National Assembly to order when, if and what decisions to make.
In the specific case, the president inadmissibly seizes the freedom of judgment of the acting prime minister.
How to get out of this situation and prevent further usurpation of power by the President, which the Constitution does not grant him?
The most important thing is to issue a decree to schedule the parliamentary elections.
If it is accepted that it has become impossible to appoint a new caretaker government, there is no obstacle to scheduling the elections. This will remove the growing suspicions of authoritarian bias and arbitrariness on the part of Mr. Radev. In accordance with the constitutional principle of continuity of government, the service cabinet "Glavchev" will continue to exercise its functions and powers.
And last but not least - the reasons for this chaos are in the clumsy constitutional change. We warned about them. In the legal opinion that was requested of me by the Constitutional Court, I have provided arguments for its unconstitutionality. Unfortunately, the constitutional court did not muster a majority to rule on the merits of these arguments.